Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Larger alliances taking advantage of smaller ones
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

Topic ClosedLarger alliances taking advantage of smaller ones

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
SunStorm View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2012 at 17:11
Originally posted by Thes Hunter Thes Hunter wrote:

All Alliances are a mixture of individuals. To say one alliance is bad because of the actions of some of it's members can be over simplifying things. If you feel there is bad behavior by a member of a 'big' alliance, than maybe you should contact the leadership of that alliance to take corrective action. 

If you have a problem with a policy of an alliance, take it up with their leadership. Or even take it up with your leadership to discuss with their leadership. Communication is the key.

Spot on.  (^_^)
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR

Back to Top
Silverlake View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 417
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2012 at 06:03
I started this post because bullying is wrong, and just because you can call in bigger friends does not give you the right to FORCE others to your will.  There is a justice that cannot be swayed with sweet talk and flowers 
Back to Top
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2012 at 06:20
Originally posted by Silverlake Silverlake wrote:

***
There is a justice that cannot be swayed with sweet talk and flowers 
In Illy, Justice is delivered from the business-end of T2 Siege Machines. Nuke
Back to Top
Loud Whispers View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Location: Saltmines
Status: Offline
Points: 196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 23:21
Originally posted by The_Dude The_Dude wrote:

Originally posted by Silverlake Silverlake wrote:

***
There is a justice that cannot be swayed with sweet talk and flowers 
In Illy, Justice is delivered from the business-end of T2 Siege Machines. Nuke
Or copious amounts of ICM's (inter-continental messages).
Back to Top
Uno View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Location: Torino
Status: Offline
Points: 101
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2012 at 22:05
While I agree, in general, with the subject, I don't with the terms. Sovereignty square can't be a discriminant for me in this matter. A sovereignty on a square gives you the right to exploit its bonus with sovereignty buildings but it doesn't make all the rest yours. As a matter of fact a resource is yours when it is in your warehouse and I find it hard to question this. I have seen players with 900 pop claiming sov at 20 distance because they thought this makes the resources on them theirs and that they don't even need to successfully defend them with their 300 sized army (not the spartans, no :P). This is just ridiculous.
My take is that if a resource is within few squares from my cities it will be hard for someone coming from far away to not get consistently bumped and coming back with empty hands and if they find the right "window" of time to succeed then all the better for everyone.
Eréc of Caer Uisc
King of Dyfneint
Indomiti Alliance
Back to Top
jazzo View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Nov 2012 at 14:35
Uno so wiki says....
Sovereignty  is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.
So if claiming sovereignty doesn't give you full rights to a square what does?
Also if some noob is claiming sov 20 squares away then that is their downfall. the negitives outway the positives. i.e the cost of claiming and protecting a sov square so far away.




Back to Top
TomBombadil View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Nov 2012 at 16:41
Originally posted by jazzo jazzo wrote:

Uno so wiki says....
Sovereignty  is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.
So if claiming sovereignty doesn't give you full rights to a square what does?
Also if some noob is claiming sov 20 squares away then that is their downfall. the negitives outway the positives. i.e the cost of claiming and protecting a sov square so far away.

First, you might like to add that after the wiki's definition of 'Sovereignty' it continues to great lengths elaborating on the abstractness, function, validity and ever-changing nature of sovereignty claims. Basically boiling down to the following: Your sovereignty claim is only as valid as others (especially the ones with the capability to challenge or destroy your claim) consider it to be.

Second, having a game mechanic called 'Sovereignty' does not necessarily impose any meaning of what we think 'Sovereignty' may mean onto that said game mechanic. The game mechanic doesn't give you "supreme, independent authority over a geographic area", regardless of what it is called; The name only serves as a label to use when referring to the game mechanic, it does not add/change anything to how it works.
Similarly if I start calling my city a boat that won't necessarily mean it will be able to float.
Back to Top
Rorgash View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Nov 2012 at 17:31
actually it does give you supreme authority, but if you cant back it up then you lose any respect you might have, but if you try to set a army on my sov you can except to lose those troops shortly afterwards ^^ and if you do it again expect to lose alot more things

Edited by Rorgash - 11 Nov 2012 at 17:31
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Nov 2012 at 18:54
Originally posted by Uno Uno wrote:

Sovereignty square can't be a discriminant for me in this matter. A sovereignty on a square gives you the right to exploit its bonus with sovereignty buildings but it doesn't make all the rest yours. As a matter of fact a resource is yours when it is in your warehouse and I find it hard to question this.

sovereignty is military control of a square.  one can argue that control thus established is only as good as one's ability to hold it, but the same argument can be made for one's towns or the resources within them.  most alliances will regard a military presence on a sovereign square as an attempted invasion, and well they should.  in the same way, harvesters on a sovereign square are thieves, and are likely to be treated as such.

while i mourn with others the death of sharing, it died because many large, well-established players from several alliances blanketed the board with harvesters in the early days of t2 trade, before squares were generally garrisoned.  while that may have given them a head start on t2 resources, it also taught many of us how quickly a rare herb could be picked into oblivion by a careless player hundreds of squares away.  as long as the game mechanics remain unchanged, holding ungarrisoned resources in common between neighbours will continue to be a risk most will not take.


Edited by Angrim - 11 Nov 2012 at 19:00
Back to Top
jazzo View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Nov 2012 at 04:09
Originally posted by TomBombadil TomBombadil wrote:

Originally posted by jazzo jazzo wrote:

Uno so wiki says....
Sovereignty  is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.
So if claiming sovereignty doesn't give you full rights to a square what does?
Also if some noob is claiming sov 20 squares away then that is their downfall. the negitives outway the positives. i.e the cost of claiming and protecting a sov square so far away.

First, you might like to add that after the wiki's definition of 'Sovereignty' it continues to great lengths elaborating on the abstractness, function, validity and ever-changing nature of sovereignty claims. Basically boiling down to the following: Your sovereignty claim is only as valid as others (especially the ones with the capability to challenge or destroy your claim) consider it to be.

Second, having a game mechanic called 'Sovereignty' does not necessarily impose any meaning of what we think 'Sovereignty' may mean onto that said game mechanic. The game mechanic doesn't give you "supreme, independent authority over a geographic area", regardless of what it is called; The name only serves as a label to use when referring to the game mechanic, it does not add/change anything to how it works.
Similarly if I start calling my city a boat that won't necessarily mean it will be able to float.

I think the general concensus will be claiming sovereignty over land makes that YOUR vessal state. so to speak.
To the people who mean to steal off my sov land. please do... my cav is getting ancy  Wink
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.